Will Cain Country - 11 Scientists Dead Or Missing: Coincidence or a Silencing Campaign?

Episode Date: April 17, 2026

Following a string of mysterious deaths and disappearances that have struck the American scientific community, Will and The Crew ask if people are making loose connections to sensationalize a story or if this is something more nefarious.Plus, Will breaks the "WNBA Omerta." Why is the mainstream sports media refusing to acknowledge that the Dallas Wings’ newest superstars are a romantic couple? And Will takes a flamethrower to the latest attempt to cancel the Texas Rangers.Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

American scientists being killed by aliens or the media drawing connections that do not exist. And as Occam taught us, the simplest explanation is usually the truth. It's all coincidence. Story fell as this morning from The Daily Mail, an 11th U.S. scientist has been found dead. joining 10 others that are either dead or missing. And this story, I think, has some fascinating details. I want to read to you some of the details over the death of Amy Eskridge in Alabama, who has now become the 11th missing or dead scientist over the past several years.

The Daily Mail writes that, Amy Eskridge, 34 years old, was working on anti-gravity tech. She was found dead of a purported self-inflicted gunshot to the head in Huntsville, Alabama in 2022. However, neither police nor medical examiners have publicly released any details on an investigation. Before her death, she was openly researching and trying to develop anti-gravity technology, a way to control or cancel out gravity, which would revolutionize space travel and energy production. Now, she is, as I mentioned, the 11th. It's insane.

Ten other scientists in America have been killed over the past several years, all of whom were involved, virtually all of whom were involved in either nuclear, highly secretive in advanced nuclear technology, or something in some way connected to. outer space and the search for alien life. Almost all of them have had some connection to Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico or NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. I think that we need to start with whether or not we are making something out of nothing. I'm always very skeptical of the media and the way that we tell stories, and I say that as both an insider and an outsider. You notice I use the word we, the way we tell stories. But I also am capable of being a person who exists outside the media. In fact, the way I try to produce both shows, Wilcane Country and the Wilcane show,

I think I'd like to approach as someone who is actually outside the media. How and what is everybody talking about? And is it the right thing and the right way everyone is talking about it? For example, I do not like the stories of shark attacks that we do every summer. I think it is making something out of nothing. Largely, those kind of numbers on shark attacks are down. It's like climate change. You know, you create a narrative, didn't find the stories to fit your story.

I don't think that the way we talk about shark attacks is appropriate. It sends people off into the ocean thinking there's a high probability and irrational fear of sharks. And there's not. Even though it happens, it doesn't match. You should be afraid. Think about all those animals that be in there. You know? There are probably giant squids.

I mean, I wouldn't step in the water. Yeah, I know you wouldn't because that's who you are. And I get it. You are that person. You're afraid to drive over bridges while you live in Jacksonville. But the rational response is you really have very little fear in the ocean. I do think we draw connections, and I think we all know this, like one of the people who's very close to the show and joins us on our morning call almost every day. As pointed out, the way we covered, for example, the UFOs and lights over the Northeast, New Jersey and New York, he is adamant that that was a big, gigantic nothing burger, that it was not anything.

It was simply planes taking off and landing at Newark Airport or Starlink. and that the media ran with that because everybody loved the story. And if you want an explanation for why the media runs with stories, it is almost often, almost always, because you like the story. Oh, look, this rated. People are interested in this. So you provide them more of that. And look, I might have been the first person on mainstream national news to do the story of these scientists.

I mean, the Daily Mail has been a part of this story and driving it forward. but now it's being covered. I think CNN, MSNBC Fox, the first place that a wider audience might have heard of it was on the Will Kane show. But I do think it's worthy to step back and say, hey, are these coincidences? Or is this something more?

Now, I'm telling you that in that I don't have the answer. I'm not dismissing this story and I'm trying not to hype this story beyond what can be supported. I will tell you as a rational bearing, two or three times, four times feels like a potential coincidence. 11 feels like something more than a coincidence, and we should start thinking much deeper about whether something is going on. But how connected are these stories actually? Is there a reason?

Or are we now working from the premise that there is a story and we have a narrative and we're finding the facts to support a story? because, for example, Amy Eskridge, that dates back to 2022. So it's almost as though she wasn't just discovered. When you see that headline, you see that post on edge. Like, oh my God, an 11th scientist was just murdered. An 11 science just disappeared. No, this happened in 2022. And now we're connecting it to this larger story.

That's not to say it doesn't belong connected. But it should make us all step back from one moment and go, are these things truly connected. So your gut instinct, fellows, off the top. Before I start laying into some of the facts, do you think we are making something out of nothing or are scientists being offed by aliens? I think it sounds like a great story.

And when it sounds like a great story, I just believe that it's a little sensationalized. But there are parts of it, like you said, that I can't deny. I mean, it sounds crazy. I tried to explain it to someone last night. I was like, there's these 11 scientists that have gone missing or dead. And they were like, well, how are they connected? And it was hard to say that.

What you just said, it was hard to connect them all. So I think it might be a little overblown, but that's just my opinion. First of all, I don't think it's a reason they're disappearing. I mean, I think it's a connection to things that are alien-like. But, like, Congressman Burleson, I believe, was on Fox and Friends this morning. And he was like, you know, people just don't just appear like this and leave all their stuff behind. And it's like if it, and if they did, it would be if it was one person, you know, you go, that's a coincidence. Two people, okay.

But it's like when you start to connect the dots and it's like there's this whole string of people, then it's like you should definitely have, you know, a red flag about it and you should look into it. And I think that's what you did. And I do think that you're right too, that, you know, sometimes, you know, we start to add pieces to a puzzle that might not fit, you know, like going back, I think some of them are from 2024, some of them, you know, this last one's 2022. That does matter, you know. We need to think about that before we.

People online were glad you covered the story on the mainstream media. They were like, finally, someone's actually talking about it. Yeah. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation about these missing scientists on Will country. Welcome back to Will Kane country. We're still breaking down the mysterious story of 11 different scientists either dead or missing over the last several years. Well, the details to your point, Patrick, are undeniably odd. At least, as I've read through this numerous times, three to four of the people that have gone missing have gone missing in very odd manner.

I would offer you more odd than the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. Three or four have walked away from their homes, largely in New Mexico, with families? Leaving their phone and their keys behind. Like doing something, behaving in a way that the rest of their family is like, that's not how they behave. And honestly, it's not how most of us behave. If you think about how most of us behave now, when you walk, what is the one thing you always have with you now? You almost always have with you your phone.

Like, if you think about normal human behavior at this point, what do you do without your phone? Most people exercise with their phone on them. You're going for a run. You're going for a jog. You're going for a lift. That phone is in your pocket. Sometimes it's in your hand. You see people running, hiking, literally the phone in their hand.

So it's sort of like when you meet someone and they're out and about, and they don't have their phone, just raw dog in life, you're like, wow, that's wild. Yeah, you don't have your phone. Right? Like, that's notable in and of itself, right? And so for someone to say, I'm leaving my home, I'm going for a hike without my phone, you've already put that person into, huh, that's interesting, category. And then you add that they disappear while not having their phone, and you've compounded the,

Huh, that's interesting. And then you add in their jobs and you've added another detail. Like, huh, that's weird. And the details just keep adding up. Now, Melissa or Amy Eskridge, the latest from 2022 that we have, the details for her are even more odd. She had appeared, and I'm trying to bring it up. article right in front of me just a moment ago, but she had appeared on several podcasts, actually. She had appeared on some AM radio, like coast to coast. And she had said stuff like, you know,

her life was in danger. She had suggested she had already been attacked by a direct energy weapon and had received burns on her body that she was being harassed and bullied, that people were coming into her house and searching her freaking underwear drawers. Now, okay, step back again. Part of me goes, maybe she's an unstable person, right? Again, if somebody tells you that, well, fair, but if you ran into somebody who was telling you those things, you'd be like, I'm just going to go get a drink. You know, he would be like, we've all met that guy at a person.

This is probably why in 2022, nobody took this into account because it's like this is one unstable person who just, you know, ends up dead. She probably committed suicide. She was probably just mentally unwell. But it's more likely that statistically. Right. And now that we're looking back and we have this other data, we can connect it. It's just like when, you know, a serial killer comes out. But Patrick, the question is, are we forcing the connection?

You're right. And the question is, so, if. Even when we did this story the first time, I'm going to tell you something. I'm into this story. I'm going to continue covering this story because at a minimum, I believe it deserves investigation as of yesterday. The president of the United States said he agrees it deserves investigation. But when we first did this story, and I was reading in on it, my staff was like,

we prepared a list, and it was a number of scientists. At that time, I believe it was eight, seven or eight, and then they included an eighth or ninth. And that eighth or ninth was Nuno Lerrero. Now, does that name ring a bell to anyone? Nuno Lerrero was the, I believe, MIT scientist who was killed by the guy who shot up Brown University. You remember that? So we all remember that story. Right.

Yeah, the guy who walked into a classroom and what, did he end up killing like two people? or he didn't kill anybody maybe at Brown. He shot people. He killed their girl. I can't remember. Didn't he? I can't remember if he successfully killed anybody at Brown. He tried, right?

And then there's a manhunt for him. And then like the manhunt lasted a day or two. Couldn't find him. And then he crops up in Boston. And he murders Nuna Lerrero at his apartment. Yeah, killed two browns. Okay, so he killed two brown students. Then there's a manhunt.

He gets away. He crops up a couple days later, and he kills Nuna Larero at MIT. And then we catch that guy, or the manhunts after that even. Now we're like, where is this guy? And he's found like in a storage shed in New Hampshire, right? And I will grant, like the storage shed, that's curious in and of itself. Like, it sounded like he had like a storage shed full of like materials. And then his story went back to, I believe.

leave Spain or Portugal, and so did Nuna Larraro's. So to me, when that was included, I was like, wait, wait, wait, how does Nuna Lerrero fit these other stories? And they were like, well, it's another high-level scientist. I'm like, yeah, but the perpetrator in this one, we know who it was. And then they were like, do we? Do we know his motivation? And those are fair. We don't know, like, really what that story was all about. People said it was a personal rivalry. It went back to Spain or Portugal. I don't know. It smelled funny back then. But it felt like we were, it felt like to me we were forcing a story into something that was a larger narrative. It just felt that way. So I worry, Patrick, are we doing that now? Like with

Amy Eskridge, and we're getting the numbers up because the numbers is what drives the story now. 11 scientists, but do 11 all fit? Are we forcing them in? Is there a connection? And this is why I asked this question legitimately. Like, we have to be critical thinkers here. It doesn't mean we don't talk about it. It certainly means we shouldn't, it doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate it. It just means we need to be critical thinkers here before we leap to Iran, China, aliens. Could there be more? Wacking our scientists. I mean, there might be cases that we don't even know about that are just cut and dry.

Scientists are dead from a few years ago. That could be part of this. Who knows? Well, I found this illustrative. This is from the Daily Mail. And if you're listening to us on Spotify or Apple, you can catch this on YouTube when this show is visual. But the Daily Mail put together a really interesting graphic. Okay.

And it's got, let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. At this point, they have eight on their graph. We're up to like 10 or 11. I only say 10 or 11 because, for example, I'm not sure Nuno LaRero fits this, right? So it's got all the names of these scientists who have either been killed or are missing. And it shows their connections. And it's illustrative in that now I can see, okay, what connections are there? And the seminal figure in this, if there is a connection, seems to be Air Force General William Neal McCaslin.

Now, McCaslin oversaw the Air Force Research Laboratory at Curtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. From the Air Force Research Laboratory, you do have spider webs coming off. All right, let's just talk about a few of those. You have Los Alamos National Laboratories, also in New Mexico. A lot of people are probably familiar with Los Alamos. That's where the Manhattan Project took place. It's not far from Roswell, you know, theoretically where some alien stuff has happened in history, whether or not it's legitimate. But the Air Force Research Laboratory

collaborates with Los Alamos on nuclear research. From Los Alamos, Melissa Casice, administrative assistant who apparently had access to classified information, has gone missing. She's one of the people who just walked away. Anthony Chavez, a former employee until 2017, has also gone missing. All right. Now the other institute you often hear about is the NASA jet propulsion laboratories. Okay. Well, McCaslin funded projects through the Air Force Research Laboratory for Monica Reza. Funding has gone from AFRL through McCaslin to Monica Reza. Monica Reza, another person who has just gone missing. I believe in Monica Reza's case, she went missing during a hike. She was director of materials processing group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. From NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, you now have Michael David Hicks. Dead, working on deflecting asteroids from Earth.

Carl Gilmore, dead, working on infrared telescopes, found, apparently he found a planet with water on it. Frank Mywald, dead, worked on detecting signs of alien life. these four people all under NASA's jet propulsion laboratories which essentially is getting funding from the Air Force Research laboratory

which is under the direction of William Neal McCaslin who is also missing now I start to see some potential connections right does this show you guys like I am asking are we forcing these in but when I see it visually

like this I start to go seeing that these are some real connections here changes it for me honestly i didn't that changes it for me that's crazy yeah i mean talk about there is a talk about another yeah i mean one other one we should say like uh the air force research laboratory um builds parts of nuclear weapons that apparently go to the kansas city national security campus and stephen garcia government contractor with the kansas city national security campus is another one who is now gone missing I don't know. Are we forcing that into that?

I don't know. Seems sloppy. Like if you're doing this and knocking these people off, it seems obvious, right? You know, now it's... Does it? Or the fact that, like, Patrick pointed out, it's been going on for three to four years. And we're just now putting all this together. So is it sloppy?

It happens all the time. Yeah. I mean, there's so many things that happen all the time. And people just, like, discount them. And it's not until somebody goes, oh, hey, what about this? And then usually it doesn't get this far. Like nobody would actually talk about it. Like it's like the movies, though.

This seems like the movies where they're like, like shooter, where they force someone to unalive themselves. You know, like it seems crazy that people would go after them and try to make it look like suicide and all this stuff. It's insane to me. Well, I mean, honestly, as much as anything, it's the missing people that are interesting to me. It's because in some of these,

The cops, like the one I just talked about, Amy Eskridge, you know, they're saying it was self-inflicted. Okay, well, I don't have the evidence to rebut that, you know. But for these people to just be missing under those weird circumstances, that requires a little more explanation for me. Like, that is what is hanging out there, continuing to make this a story that at this point is also being investigated apparently under the administration. of President Donald Trump. Coming up, there seems to be an omerta, a sworn packed in sports media, not to talk about the fact that two of the WNBA's biggest stars are dating. Why? On Will Cain Country.

Welcome back to Will Cain Country. I am absolutely fascinated by this story. Another story. I am fascinated by the story of the Dallas Wings. I am fascinated by a story in the WNBA. Seriously. I am. I really am. I know that sounds counterintuitive. Everything I just said. This is the first time for me. Talked about it on yesterday's episode. To be honest.

So you're interested in this story as well? Yeah, this is, it gets better and better. It's more soap opery every day. And like, I hate the WMPA. I'm so tired of hearing about it. But this is so interesting. And Patrick, I heard some guys on radio saying this. They're like, well, let me know how it works out. Tell me if the wings are better at the end of the year. because I'm not going to watch. And then one of them goes, the guy goes, you know what? Actually, if I'm being honest, this makes me more interested. It does make me more interested. I'm a little curious.

How are the wings going to play? Okay. So the story is Paige Beckers. I'm going to try to – I was telling my TV staff about this. I'm going to tell you why I think this is interesting as well. This is the most important part, the why, in my mind. The rest of it is just curiosity. The Dallas Wings last year drafted with the number one overall.

pick, Paige Becker's. Paige Becker's is a WNBA star. She is like... Concanipple. She's not Luca. She's not Luca. No, because she was the number one pick in the draft. She...

And Luca wasn't even the number one pick in the draft. She's not LeBron. But she's maybe like Anthony Davis. I'm trying to think of somebody who was a clear number one pick who everybody thought this might be the best player to come along in three to five years. Do you follow what I'm saying there? She's not automatically like the best player in the WNBA. She's not Caitlin Clark. She's like, okay, this person could be the best player in the WNBA and they're probably the best draft prospect you've had in three to five years.

That's Paige Beggers. Yeah. Like Trevor Lawrence. Maybe. Maybe Trevor Lawrence. That's who Page Becker's is. So like coming out last year, clear number one. potential generational you're taking page beckers yeah potential generation okay so and also a star a little bit like she had some media um renown she for the w nba world then they both have long hair so that's who the wings selected last year fast forward a year later page beckers went to yukon when she was at Yukon, there was a story that she was girlfriends with another player at Yukon, Ozzie Fudd. All right, it's a story. Everybody finds it a curiosity.

I think they won the national championship together. Oh, interesting. Two girls. They're a couple. And that's kind of the end of that. Like, people don't have anywhere else to go beyond that, right? A year later, the Dallas Wings sucked, even though they had Paige Beckers and got the number one overall pick again.

This is just this week. This year, it's not. a no-brainer. Who is the top prospect coming into the WNBA? There was like four players who could have been the top overall pick. And in fact, there was a favorite. The favorite ended up going third or fourth. I can't pronounce her name. It's like a foreign name. And she's a, what do you say in the WNBA? She's a big man. You know, like in the NBA, you'd say, he's a big man. He's a big man. Meaning he could be, yeah, four or five, probably. Yeah. So the, the most likely number one overall pick was the female version of a big man.

She was a four or five. But the wings apparently had already signed like two or three big women in free agency. So they're like, well, we don't need a big woman. So now they're down to, yeah, that one. That's the one that probably everybody thought is the most likely to be the number one overall pig. Okay. So then the wings decide to draft Ozzie Fudd, who I'm not telling you they reached down into the bucket and picked somebody who didn't deserve to be the number one all pick. She was in the debate, potentially to be the number one overall pick, right?

Just not a no-brainer. And the wings selected her. What's interesting about that is she is Paige Becker's girlfriend, or at least last we heard she was when they were at Yukon together. This is not a secret. Beckers and Fudd have talked about it on TikTok. I think they did a glamour magazine profile together. They have put their relationship out there for people to see and think and talk about. Okay.

You would not know any of that from ESPN's draft night coverage. You would not know any of that from the day after write-ups at the New York Times, the athletic, or ESPN. No one mentioned that they were a couple. No one. More on that in just a moment. Then, yesterday, at her introductory press conference, far as I can tell, the only person to ask about it is Kevin Sherrington of the Dallas Morning News. I think you have this, right, Dan? You can play what happens when he asks this question.

Page announced last year on TikTok that y'all were a couple, and I'm wondering if that is still the case. And if so, if y'all have talked to any other couples in the league about how they negotiate that dynamic as pro teammates. I understand why you have to ask that question, but we're going to respectfully decline from commenting on our players' personal lives. The next question. Let's someone off to the side. Okay. If you're listening on Spotify or Apple, the voice you heard is not Ozzy Fudd who's sitting at the podium. It's a Dallas Wing's PR exec who jumps in and says, we're not answering those questions.

Okay. All right. So here we are. Here we are. and I am fascinated by this on really one main level. On the first level is the least interesting to me. Like, the wings doing that, I think they're wrong, but I'm not outraged by that. Do you know what I mean?

Like, it could be that Ozzy Fudd said to the wings, I don't really want to talk about that. Would you guys kind of deflect for me? And the wings were like, the wings PR is like, yeah, we got it. We'll deflect for you. You know what I mean? Now, if you're in the Wings PR and she says that to you, I might say, you know, Ozzie, that's going to be difficult because you guys have put your relationship out there and people are going to be curious about it. And it's also relevant. It's relevant to a team dynamic.

Now, so I'm not like that mad or outraged by the Wings behavior. I'm also not that outraged by Fudd and Becker's behavior. If they decided before that they wanted to talk about their relationship, but now they've decided they don't want to, that's sort of their prerogative, right? Like, you can choose what to share about your personal life or not. I get it. I do think, and Ellie Patrick was telling me she sent this video to you guys that Emmanuel, a acho had did a thing like

look ladies if you want to be treated like the men and you want to get paid like the men then you're going to have to be able to subject yourself to the same kind of thing as the men and men would 100% be asked about this they are asked about it Dak Prescott is you know Dak Prescott's marriage just fell apart

and you don't think people are asking about that and by the way his fiance not his marriage but his engagement his fiance is a nobody she's not on the team right and he's still going to get asked about it. Steph Curry's asked about his wife and what she wears and how she acts on the sidelines. Everybody's asked about this stuff because it becomes relevant if you think it impacts performance.

And on this one, they're literally on the same team. Like it is one of the most relevant things that you could ask about. What happens if you break up? What happens if you have a big fight? What happens if the rest of the team thinks you're too close? You know, there's just so much relevance to this. So much so that I would bet you every penny of my net worth that the Wings discussed this before drafting Ozzie Fudd. Absolutely.

Do you think the Wings would invest a number one overall pick in a player without discussing, hey, what about their relationship? How do you think that plays? How does it play in the locker room? How does it play on the court? How does it play in the media? How does it play if they break up? Do you think the wings didn't discuss that?

Yeah. Like, if the wings didn't discuss it, everybody should be fired. Potentially, but I mean, it's saying not, the positive is what we just said. Yeah. I may pay attention more. We're talking about it. They haven't played together yet. But the idea that they wouldn't be discussing it is beyond absurd.

And if they didn't discuss it, everyone at the wing should be fired. Like, you're not doing your job. You have to consider this. So... Do they consider girlfriends, hold on, for a guy, for pro athletes, for men? Like, when they get drafted and stuff like that? Do they talk about that? Like, this guy has a girlfriend who's all over social media.

Isn't that a thing, too? So they're asked about that kind of thing. 100%. Des Brian... Des Brian was asked about his mom. Yeah. Like... Do you remember that story?

I don't. Kind of. As Bryant was famously asked whether or not his mom was a prostitute. Oh, yeah, yeah. I do with that. Oh, my God. Yeah. So, like, obviously, they think about these things, yeah.

You know what they'll do, and I defend them in some ways on this. The story is sometimes in the combine, they'll ask these dudes intentionally provocative questions to see how they will react. Because the calculus from the NFL team's perspective is pretty obvious. if you can't handle me asking you something like this, how are you going to handle A, the media when they ask you things? Or B, what about an opponent that trash talks you on the field and says these terrible things to you? Are you going to lose your mind? Are you going to get a 15-yard penalty? Are you going to get kicked from the game?

Are you going to just lose your focus? Like, I get it why you would provoke a player in interviews to see how they react. Because, man, sports is at least 50% all about your head. probably more likely 75%, all about your emotions and your head. And that, this relationship is directly tied to these two ladies' heads, their emotions, and how that's going to affect their play and ultimately the product for the wings. My point in all that is just like, it's beyond relevant, beyond relevant. I mean, what's the best analogy?

Is it a mixed doubles tennis team where the partners are married? they'd be asked about it, right? But you could easily switch your partner in that way because it's individual still, not team. More easily than a, yeah, more easily than basketball teammates. Yeah, yeah. Yes. I don't know.

I mean, guys don't date each other. By the way, I don't think this is the first time. This has happened in the WMBA before, as I've learned. Yeah. Yeah. But to be young draft picks, though, has it happened that way? No, that's the first time. Yeah.

Two number ones in a row? Right. And at the start of your WMBA career is different than just like dating someone on your team that you've already been with. Okay. Well, here's the most interesting part of this to me. And I don't know, like, I'll be curious if you guys agree with me because not everybody does, like why this is. I am, here's where I'm actually outraged. I am outraged that the media seems to have taken a sworn pack not to talk about this.

that it wasn't discussed on ESPN's draft night coverage, that it wasn't in any of the articles, that people out there will not know this because the media will not discuss it. And I want to know why. The fact that Kevin Sherrington asked it is what's notable. And by the way, he is getting some blowback on X. I just kind of searched it. I'm not sure there are people of any relevance or significant following. but their mindset is he's a total cretan, how dare he asks that?

Like, how do you arrive there? How is the media doing this? And why are they doing it? What is it that every editor or boss or producer is telling talent? We're not talking about that. Why? Like, is it the gay angle? It can't be that because everybody already knows that the WNBA is super gay.

Like, why? What is the, if I had an executive at ESPN, I would genuinely ask that question. And by the way, if I were a commentator, I would fight. I'd be like, what are you talking about? This is incredibly relevant. Why can't I bring this up? You know what I mean? So what are they telling themselves?

Explain. What are they telling themselves? I'm genuinely curious. What are they telling themselves about why the public can't get to talk about this or know this? Well, it's like a landmine. So like, I agree. just that topic, you know, if someone says the wrong thing about it. A female gay relationship.

Yeah. They say the wrong word. It could blow up and then that person could be out. That's exactly it. I agree. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation on if the media is hiding this from us, what else are they unwilling to talk about on Will Kane Country? Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive.

The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge.

BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. So you think, for example, ESPN, somebody inside of ESPN would say to all the analysts and commentaries. Let's just stay away from that. There's too many landmines. That's what they would say. That's what pops of mind for me. I think that's what it is.

What are the landmines? I'm serious. No, I'm serious, Patrick. We don't know that, though. That's why they stay away from it. I don't understand the landmines. Because we don't know them. Like, we could say something or they could say something that I don't know. You know what I mean? Yeah, you can make a joke, an off-color

joke. Like, you know, do you guys pick each other's pregame outfits out together? Like, I don't know. Is that offensive? Maybe. Like. Well, you're 100% right, by the way. The fact that Sherrington is getting some blowback.

Yeah. There are people out there that would turn nothing into something. There is no doubt about that, right? And I could see ESPN saying, let's just not do that because who knows how this is going to blow back on us? I could see that sort of risk aversion in the modern day climate of who knows what's going to be used to be. Nobody's actually offended, by the way. Nobody's actually offended. They're just using it as a power play.

But I'm even more intrigued by the written articles, Patrick. There's no line in the written articles about this that acknowledges it. Like, how are you going to be offended by a written line in an article that states a fact? You know what I mean? Yeah. Well, all the articles are only about her. being asked the question now. Like this, this article. Now, but before, before Sherrington did it, they, we, Sherrington did that after we did our show yesterday. And this was already something I was

noticing. The media is not talking about this at all. Why? Why? Maybe. And you're right. The answer to why is look at what's happening to Sherrington. Yeah. Like, look how they're coming after Sherington. This article is, number one picked, Asi Fudd deserved better journalism in her press conference, you know, for asking about it. That is the definition of journalism, asking a question about a relevant fact. And that's my point. That's where I get outrage. What do you think journalism is?

And if you think it's this, not Sherrington, but the way everyone else is treating it, what else are you doing? That's what I'm really curious about. What else are you not saying? What else are you group think saying? Like, it's so revealing to me about the media. It's ultimately unimportant, like in the bigger world.

And I get everybody who's listening to like, it doesn't matter. Well, it does matter. It does. It actually matters a lot in this little world. And if they're willing to act like this, in this little world, what are they acting like on things that are obviously much bigger in relevance, meaning society-wide? Right? Yes.

It reminds me of COVID. It kind of, it reminds me of COVID. And I hate to say everything reminds you of COVID. But when everybody says the same shit or doesn't say the same shit and you don't know how they get there, you're left going, what the hell, man? Like, who is? Who is giving the marching orders? And the truth is, I don't think anybody is giving. I don't think anybody is giving the marching orders.

I don't think there was a mandate. I don't think the WNBA told ESP. and the athletic not to talk about it. I do not think there was a mandate. I think they all decided somehow together we're not doing this. Not together, independently, but as members of group think, we're not doing this. That's my suspicion. You think it's because they're young, like they're college student?

Like, she's just a college student. Do you think that factors in talking about a relationship of a young girl like that? Maybe, I don't know. Not that it's a gay relationship, but just that she's young. I don't know. But going back to what you were saying, 25, 30 years ago, you had, you would watch news. And John Stossel would be on 2020 and he would do in-depth reporting on things. And he'd go and get on the ground and he'd report on things.

And now you have Nick Shirley doing the same kind of stuff. But because the mainstream media won't do that and they're trying to pass laws banning them. And I know it sounds like, how do you make a connection between Nick Shirley and this? but it's like it's a it's a microcosm of the whole way of how journalism is done now no one no one goes and does those kind of things anymore i think it's just a mindset if if one of those people who for example covers the w nba and is right now upset with kevin sharrington for asking that we're sitting with me right now we're sitting right here what would they say to me about why that should not be a topic. What would they say?

Like, how would they justify it? Because to me, it's like... They've seen none of your business. Obvious on its face that it's relevant. It is my business if I root for the Dallas Wings. And I'm concerned about how they play. And I want them to win, which are all huge leaps. But...

Big Wings fan. Look, man, I'd start. get it. So that person is none of my business. If freaking Cooper flag, let's say the Mavs win the lotto, right? Again. In the draft. And Camboozer

is like a top four pick. Let's say the Mavs end up somewhere in the range of being able to draft Camboosier. And they were teammates at Duke, right? They were one year ago. And they were dating. Are you telling me it's none of my

business? Like, oh, wow. You know. I think there'd be people on the left. And by the way, it would be relevant because they'd be like two openly gay players. Then they would talk about it. But let's say that that wasn't a thing. Let's say that wasn't a thing. Like, oh, there are gay players in the NBA and they are dating each other. It's not that. So let's put it on the same level as the WNBA. I'd still be interested because I'd want to know what is the effect on the Mavericks when two of their players are together, right? And how does that person sitting next to me tell me it's none of my business in that context? Do you know what I mean?

So they'd say it's none of my business. And I'd say, well, that's obviously untrue. I would just say it's unimportant. I'd say that's obviously untrue. They'd say, and then I guess, then they did see the argument they're making is it's not fair to Ozzy Fudd to talk about that while she was just drafted number one. Why? Like you're stealing her moment, but that's part of her story. and no one's doing it with a negative connotation.

I'm not. I'm not going like, this is awful, this is absurd. I'm just saying this is relevant and interesting. And I don't know how that person's sitting here doing that tells me it isn't. I don't think they actually believe it, but they have enough confidence that people will stand behind them in saying that. You know, so they won't care that you're asking that. They'll just be like, well, everyone agrees with me that it's none of our business. but it is our business

it is and in any other situation I would be proven true I'd be proven right they'd be proven wrong yeah for sure any other application that's where my outright outrage lies and that's going to take us to our final story as well

here today which makes me completely outrage speaking of the athletic which I do spend money on because I do think it's really pretty good at sports reporting I mean hell it might be worth it just because they employed Dane Bruegler and he produces the beast, which is pretty much the best draft guide, NFL draft guide out there.

They have a dude that wrote a story about the Texas Rangers. A lot of stuff coming out of Dallas here when it comes to this stuff. And the story is that a few years ago during 2020, Dallas Love Field Airport had a statue of a Texas Ranger, the real Texas. Rangers, the cops, right? Everybody knows what the Texas Rangers are. Like, they were, they are and have been for, yeah, a little before Chuck, a little before Chuck. That's how I know the show. That's how I know what they are is from that show. Well, the Texas Rangers, I mean, dating back to the 1800s, you know, were the elite force of state police that fought the Comanches.

I mean, it's a part of Texas's history. Very famous. All the way up until then in the 1920s, Frank Hamer was a famous Texas Ranger, and he famously got Bonnie and Clyde. And then the Texas Rangers today are still a thing. And that's what the baseball team is named after, the Texas Rangers. Which, by the way, the New York Rangers and hockey, what are they? Park Rangers?

What is that? A park ranger? I'm serious. Why are they the Rangers? It's a good question. I think I used to know that in the 12. So, but during 2020, the story comes out that the model for this statue of a Texas Ranger at Lovefield Airport was, and I forget his name, but he was a Texas Ranger who helped at the governor's order enforce segregation, I believe, in the 1960s. and there is a photo of him, this Texas Ranger, like leaning up against a tree in front of a school, and the school did have an effigy of a black person at the end of a noose at the top of the building.

It's pretty awful. He's there doing his job that was told to be done by the governor. And by the Texas Rangers throughout their history do have some instances of a checkered past. And there's a guy who wrote a book about this. The idea was, this was during 2020 as well, roughly in that time period, 17, 18, to basically malign the Texas Rangers as racist law enforcement, all that stuff. And all that stuff worked in 2020. And Dallas Lovefield Airport took down the statue because they're like, well, the model was this guy and the Rangers had this checkered past and this guy did something bad. It's not a statue of him.

Like, it is of him, but it's meant to symbolize all Texas Rangers. It doesn't have his name on it. It has Texas Rangers. They took it down. They put it in storage this year, Ray Davis, the owner of the Texas Rangers, like, we'll take it. We'll put it at Globe Life Stadium where the Rangers play. And they did. And now, here comes the athletic writing, the statue was too controversial for Dallas Airport.

Why did the Texas Rangers give it a home? And then the article sounds like it's straight out of 2020. Like telling you the whole story. of this one Texas Ranger and the checkered past of the Texas Rangers. And I read the comments, by the way, because I always enjoy that when I'm reading The Athletic because all the other subscribers outside of me are a bunch of lefties. And they're like, you should even rename the team. You know, it shouldn't be the Texas Rangers.

Get out of here. And what I have to say to, I'm serious. That's insane. These people live amongst us. These people live amongst us. They're going to have to rename the New York Rangers. The York Rangers is based off Texas Rangers. essentially.

No way. The owner was named Tex Ricard. And so when he had the team, they called him Texas, Tex, apostrophe S, Rangers after Texas Rangers. And then they became the New York Rangers. So it's based off of the Texas Rangers. How about that? I had no idea. And the New York Rangers are older than the Texas Rangers.

They've been around longer. So they had borrowed on this Texas Rangers theme. Yeah, way before that. The Rangers are the former senators. That's right. They became the Rangers in the 70s. Yeah. Washington Senators.

Here's the picture of the statue if you're watching on YouTube or Facebook. I mean, it's actually also a cool-looking statue. That's badass. It's badass, especially the one silhouetted against the sky. I would want to walk into that. New York Yankees are terrible. Well, for all of these. public pressure, athletic,

pride this statue from my cold dead hands. You're going to tie yourself to it? You're not taken away. When I'm governor of Texas, let me just tell you one thing. You're not taking away the history. You're not taking away the mythology. I don't even care if you tell me all these stuff.

Like, this was bad. You're not taking away the mythology. This is what makes us... Can't erase my history. Special. different, better. So. You're going to speak it into existence, Will.

You want to jump? Jump. Governor of Texas. Governor of Texas. I'm governor of Texas. This is a stupid question. Are there still Texas Rangers? Yeah, absolutely.

Okay. I did not know. Absolutely. Are they like state troopers? There's such as state employees, I'm assuming. They are state troopers, but they're a force within the state troopers. Fascinating. I've always wanted to go to the Texas Ranger Museum, Hall of Fame.

There is one in Waco. I mean, there's great stories, great stories of Texas Rangers. Frank Hamer alone. Did you guys ever see that movie with, was it Kevin Costner and was it Woody Harrelson? Was it called the Highway Men or something like that? It's about the hunt for Bonnie and Clyde. It was on Netflix, I think. I don't think it came to movie theaters.

Yeah. Anyway, you're not taking away the Texas Rangers, nor the Texas Ranger statue. All right, that's going to do it for us today on this Friday. We hope you've enjoyed this episode. Make sure you follow us on Spotify or Apple, and we'll see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News Podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon Music app.